To link to the entire object, paste this link in email, IM or documentTo embed the entire object, paste this HTML in websiteTo link to this page, paste this link in email, IM or documentTo embed this page, paste this HTML in website

University of Southern California
DAILY
TROJAN
VOL. LXII
NO. 122
LOS ANGELES, CALIFORNIA
THURSDAY, MAY 13, 1971
Photo by Bruce Bolinger
UNDER CONSTRUCTION
A mass of detours and construction, this corner of McClintock Avenue and Jefferson Boulevard is one of the many sites of renovation under the Hoover Redevelopment Project.
Merchants question value of renewal
By KIP STRATTE
The last few structures are coming down, most residents have been relocated and construction is underway in the Hoover Redevelopment Project.
And many local businessmen have been sitting through it all—a few suffering serious financial losses—hoping that when completed, redevelopment will mean more customers, better economic conditions and revitalized business and
social climate.
They have seen the relocation of more than 270 other businesses. They have watched the demolition of nearly 700 structures. And some have felt profits fall as more than 500 families were relocated to different areas.
Some business owners have grown bitter, some optimistic, and others uncertain about the six-year-old project.
The not-too-loud voice of the businessmen in the project is the Hoover Urban Redevelopment Advisory Committee (HURAC), composed of some local business owners and residents.
Former HURAC chairman. Dr. Travis Kendall, acknowledged problems of some businessmen.
“The business community has suffered greatly from the urban renewal project.' said Kendall, “particularly those along Vermont Avenue in the temporary shopping center. It just didn't turn out too well economically."
Indeed, perhaps the businesses hardest hit by redevelopment were those originally along the west side of Vermont Avenue, some of which have been relocated into a temporary shopping center on Jefferson Boulevard to make way for construction.
Wilson Bitar. a clothing store owner 2nd one of the seven businessmen relocated into the temporary shopping center
last year, was bitter about the project.
“I didn't want to move over here,” Bitar said. “But I couldn’t find another location, and when I moved here I lost about 50 or 60 percent of my business.”
Bitar said he had to open another store in a different location to help defer the losses suffered at the temporary site. And he plans to close the store here within a month.
“It's been a terrible strain on me. It's been a financial loss, and I’m very bitter about it,” he added.
Bitar had two many reasons why most businessmen in the temporary shopping center were having problems.
First, he said they were relocated from a busy business area on Vermont Avenue to an area which he said was “inconvenient” for shoppers.
Second, many of his customers—local residents—have been relocated out of the area since the project began in 1965.
Jaime G. Monroy, manager of the Hoover Project, said that he realized these problems, but added that several businesses formerly along Vermont Avenue were already in serious economic condition. Monroy attributed this to a social change in the nature of the neighborhood.
“In 1964. there were vacant stores all over the place,” he said. “A vacant store is a blight to anyone whose business is next door, and it's only a matter of time before that business goes out of business too.”
Monroy said that muggings in the area made people afraid to walk across Vermont Avenue after four or five o'clock in the evening.
Monroy said that redevelopment actually saved some businesses along Vermont Avenue.
“Actually, when we come along with our relocation program and entitlements under the relocation program, we bail them out,” he said. “I've seen this many times.
(Continued on page 2)
Suits may be filed for ballot-stuffing
By TERILOBREE
ASSC presidential candidates are threatening to bring legal action against Ron Prince, who confessed that he stuffed ballots for Chuck Jones, a presidential hopeful, in the primary election. Prince’s admission of ballot stuffing was one of the causes of the election being invalidated.
The candidates are allegedly seeking damages for the time and money spent during the two weeks of rigorous campaigning.
The details of Prince’s involvement had been confidential since the election, but were officially released by President John R. Hubbard last Thursday.
Jim Lacy, sophomore representative, said he understood that individual students, specifically two candidates whose names he would not reveal, are planning to bring civil suit against Prince for damages. He said that if there are not enough grounds for a civil suit then they plan to take Prince to small claims court.
Lacy said that the limit in small claims court is $300, so that if two candidates filed, they could file a $600 small claims suit against Prince.
He said the reason the candidates are filing is to regain campaign expenses.
Randy Goodwin, editor of the Free Trojan and manager of presidential candidate John McGuinness's campaign, said, “Candidates damaged in the elections are preparing a civil suit for damages caused by Prince's self-admitted act of fraud that invalidated the whole two weeks of campaigning.”
Jones said that the other candidates talked to him about the suit, but that he was not involved with it in any way. “However,” he said. “I will be available to testify if needed.”
Presidential candidate Craig Caldwell said he will not be a part of the class action. He said he would let the other candidates do what they wanted and that he would take his own course of action.
Kent Clemence, another presidential candidate, said he is not involved in the civil suit being brought against Prince. He said, “I feel Prince is only a minor part in the elections and that it would be difficult to get any satisfaction by taking action against him. ”
Clemence said he is filing a separate suit against the ASSC for “the way the election was managed,” and that he feels
Correction
Several mistakes were made in the story in yesterday’s Daily Trojan about the demonstration against the oppression of Soviet Jews. The demonstration was sponsored by the USC Hillel Students, not the Southern California Council for Soviet Jews, as was stated in the article.
The speaker, Si Frumkin, is a member of the latter organization, but took part in the rally as an outside speaker, not as a sponsor. His last name is Frumkin, not Trumkin, as it was reported in the article.
The Daily Trojan also erred in saying that the petition circulated at the rally called for the release of the Jews to Israel. The document actually requests that Russian Jews be allowed to leave the country and that those who stay be given religious and cultural freedom. The petition also calls for the release of all Jews imprisoned in Russia.
they are responsible for the “gross irregularities that occurred. ”
Presidential candidate John McGuinness could not be reached for comment.
Prince himself said that he was aware of the possibility of a suit being brought against him. When asked if he had any defense prepared should action be taken, he said that he did not wish to comment.
In regard to any disciplinary action at USC that is being taken against Prince for his actions, he said that he feels the case is closed. “The Student Behavior Committee will not take any action against me as far as I know.”
Scott Bice, associate dean of the School of Law and a member of the Student Behavior Committee, reinforced Prince’s statement. “The Student Behavior Committee doesn't initiate action but merely serves as an appellate review body whose function is to review cases brought before them by some other body,” he said.
He said any disciplinary action brought against Prince would have to be brought through the dean of student life, Robert Mannes, or through the Student Judicial if a complaint is filed.
Dean Mannes, however, had something entirely different to say. “Some kind of action will have to be taken against Prince: as to what that will be
I don’t know yet. I would like to speak with Ron personally before I make any kind of statement,” he said.
i
Songfest '71: financial data now awaited
Now that the excitement from the results of Songfest ’71 has subsided the Songfest committee is awaiting the financial report from the ticket office.
Songfest has apparently once again lost money. A member of the committee, Bilenda Harris, said, “So what else is new? They've only made money once in the last ten years.”
Bob Stewart, chairman of the Songfest committee, was a bit more optimistic. He said he didn't think there would be any profit, but “at least we didn’t overspend our budget.” Stewart said they will probably break even. It should be noted, however, that the purpose of Songfest is not profit.
He explained how Songfest is financed. “There are two accounts opened. One contains a loan form the university. This is used to secure the theater which costs $500, plus the cost for running the theater.” He said they had to hire a union crew, the Navy ROTC to usher, and the Helenes, who donated their services for one ticket with the option of buying another.
“In the other account we pay back the university separately from the money received from ticket sales, money that was left over from last year's record sales, and application fees.”
He said he felt they did well this year as far as mail-outs are concerned. “We mailed out approximately 21.000 ticket applications with only 32 returns. Normally there is a 10 per cent return on university mailing. We had only a 2 per cent return.”
Stewart said a good deal of the money
(Continued on page 5)

University of Southern California
DAILY
TROJAN
VOL. LXII
NO. 122
LOS ANGELES, CALIFORNIA
THURSDAY, MAY 13, 1971
Photo by Bruce Bolinger
UNDER CONSTRUCTION
A mass of detours and construction, this corner of McClintock Avenue and Jefferson Boulevard is one of the many sites of renovation under the Hoover Redevelopment Project.
Merchants question value of renewal
By KIP STRATTE
The last few structures are coming down, most residents have been relocated and construction is underway in the Hoover Redevelopment Project.
And many local businessmen have been sitting through it all—a few suffering serious financial losses—hoping that when completed, redevelopment will mean more customers, better economic conditions and revitalized business and
social climate.
They have seen the relocation of more than 270 other businesses. They have watched the demolition of nearly 700 structures. And some have felt profits fall as more than 500 families were relocated to different areas.
Some business owners have grown bitter, some optimistic, and others uncertain about the six-year-old project.
The not-too-loud voice of the businessmen in the project is the Hoover Urban Redevelopment Advisory Committee (HURAC), composed of some local business owners and residents.
Former HURAC chairman. Dr. Travis Kendall, acknowledged problems of some businessmen.
“The business community has suffered greatly from the urban renewal project.' said Kendall, “particularly those along Vermont Avenue in the temporary shopping center. It just didn't turn out too well economically."
Indeed, perhaps the businesses hardest hit by redevelopment were those originally along the west side of Vermont Avenue, some of which have been relocated into a temporary shopping center on Jefferson Boulevard to make way for construction.
Wilson Bitar. a clothing store owner 2nd one of the seven businessmen relocated into the temporary shopping center
last year, was bitter about the project.
“I didn't want to move over here,” Bitar said. “But I couldn’t find another location, and when I moved here I lost about 50 or 60 percent of my business.”
Bitar said he had to open another store in a different location to help defer the losses suffered at the temporary site. And he plans to close the store here within a month.
“It's been a terrible strain on me. It's been a financial loss, and I’m very bitter about it,” he added.
Bitar had two many reasons why most businessmen in the temporary shopping center were having problems.
First, he said they were relocated from a busy business area on Vermont Avenue to an area which he said was “inconvenient” for shoppers.
Second, many of his customers—local residents—have been relocated out of the area since the project began in 1965.
Jaime G. Monroy, manager of the Hoover Project, said that he realized these problems, but added that several businesses formerly along Vermont Avenue were already in serious economic condition. Monroy attributed this to a social change in the nature of the neighborhood.
“In 1964. there were vacant stores all over the place,” he said. “A vacant store is a blight to anyone whose business is next door, and it's only a matter of time before that business goes out of business too.”
Monroy said that muggings in the area made people afraid to walk across Vermont Avenue after four or five o'clock in the evening.
Monroy said that redevelopment actually saved some businesses along Vermont Avenue.
“Actually, when we come along with our relocation program and entitlements under the relocation program, we bail them out,” he said. “I've seen this many times.
(Continued on page 2)
Suits may be filed for ballot-stuffing
By TERILOBREE
ASSC presidential candidates are threatening to bring legal action against Ron Prince, who confessed that he stuffed ballots for Chuck Jones, a presidential hopeful, in the primary election. Prince’s admission of ballot stuffing was one of the causes of the election being invalidated.
The candidates are allegedly seeking damages for the time and money spent during the two weeks of rigorous campaigning.
The details of Prince’s involvement had been confidential since the election, but were officially released by President John R. Hubbard last Thursday.
Jim Lacy, sophomore representative, said he understood that individual students, specifically two candidates whose names he would not reveal, are planning to bring civil suit against Prince for damages. He said that if there are not enough grounds for a civil suit then they plan to take Prince to small claims court.
Lacy said that the limit in small claims court is $300, so that if two candidates filed, they could file a $600 small claims suit against Prince.
He said the reason the candidates are filing is to regain campaign expenses.
Randy Goodwin, editor of the Free Trojan and manager of presidential candidate John McGuinness's campaign, said, “Candidates damaged in the elections are preparing a civil suit for damages caused by Prince's self-admitted act of fraud that invalidated the whole two weeks of campaigning.”
Jones said that the other candidates talked to him about the suit, but that he was not involved with it in any way. “However,” he said. “I will be available to testify if needed.”
Presidential candidate Craig Caldwell said he will not be a part of the class action. He said he would let the other candidates do what they wanted and that he would take his own course of action.
Kent Clemence, another presidential candidate, said he is not involved in the civil suit being brought against Prince. He said, “I feel Prince is only a minor part in the elections and that it would be difficult to get any satisfaction by taking action against him. ”
Clemence said he is filing a separate suit against the ASSC for “the way the election was managed,” and that he feels
Correction
Several mistakes were made in the story in yesterday’s Daily Trojan about the demonstration against the oppression of Soviet Jews. The demonstration was sponsored by the USC Hillel Students, not the Southern California Council for Soviet Jews, as was stated in the article.
The speaker, Si Frumkin, is a member of the latter organization, but took part in the rally as an outside speaker, not as a sponsor. His last name is Frumkin, not Trumkin, as it was reported in the article.
The Daily Trojan also erred in saying that the petition circulated at the rally called for the release of the Jews to Israel. The document actually requests that Russian Jews be allowed to leave the country and that those who stay be given religious and cultural freedom. The petition also calls for the release of all Jews imprisoned in Russia.
they are responsible for the “gross irregularities that occurred. ”
Presidential candidate John McGuinness could not be reached for comment.
Prince himself said that he was aware of the possibility of a suit being brought against him. When asked if he had any defense prepared should action be taken, he said that he did not wish to comment.
In regard to any disciplinary action at USC that is being taken against Prince for his actions, he said that he feels the case is closed. “The Student Behavior Committee will not take any action against me as far as I know.”
Scott Bice, associate dean of the School of Law and a member of the Student Behavior Committee, reinforced Prince’s statement. “The Student Behavior Committee doesn't initiate action but merely serves as an appellate review body whose function is to review cases brought before them by some other body,” he said.
He said any disciplinary action brought against Prince would have to be brought through the dean of student life, Robert Mannes, or through the Student Judicial if a complaint is filed.
Dean Mannes, however, had something entirely different to say. “Some kind of action will have to be taken against Prince: as to what that will be
I don’t know yet. I would like to speak with Ron personally before I make any kind of statement,” he said.
i
Songfest '71: financial data now awaited
Now that the excitement from the results of Songfest ’71 has subsided the Songfest committee is awaiting the financial report from the ticket office.
Songfest has apparently once again lost money. A member of the committee, Bilenda Harris, said, “So what else is new? They've only made money once in the last ten years.”
Bob Stewart, chairman of the Songfest committee, was a bit more optimistic. He said he didn't think there would be any profit, but “at least we didn’t overspend our budget.” Stewart said they will probably break even. It should be noted, however, that the purpose of Songfest is not profit.
He explained how Songfest is financed. “There are two accounts opened. One contains a loan form the university. This is used to secure the theater which costs $500, plus the cost for running the theater.” He said they had to hire a union crew, the Navy ROTC to usher, and the Helenes, who donated their services for one ticket with the option of buying another.
“In the other account we pay back the university separately from the money received from ticket sales, money that was left over from last year's record sales, and application fees.”
He said he felt they did well this year as far as mail-outs are concerned. “We mailed out approximately 21.000 ticket applications with only 32 returns. Normally there is a 10 per cent return on university mailing. We had only a 2 per cent return.”
Stewart said a good deal of the money
(Continued on page 5)